User talk:Traditha

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Kimmat.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Kimmat.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 22:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC). If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:33, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing tags from articles
Please do not remove tags from articles unless you either fix the problems the tags reference or provide a reason why the tag is not needed (at least in your edit summary but preferably on the talk page). Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 22:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

April 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Brooke Logan. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Brooke Logan
Hello, I see we're in a conflict about the Brooke Logan article. There are some Wikipedia guidelines that might help us figure out how to proceed with the article. Here's some stuff from the Wikipedia Soap Opera Project:


 * 1) All soap-related articles, and character articles in particular, must meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for fiction. Simply stated, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
 * 2) The article should not be used for a collection of storyline trivia about the character. As a rule of thumb, only those events which were significant enough to have been written about in third-party sources should be included.
 * 3) Remember that we are here to create an encyclopedia, not to provide a comprehensive guide to soap opera storylines. Wherever possible, try to discuss the character in "real world" context: Why are they important to non-fans, how are they affecting modern culture, what have they done that is historic in a real-world context. If a detail is only interesting to those who watch the show, it is probably not worth including in the Wikipedia article.
 * 4) Storyline summary; 500-1000 words maximum
 * 5) Sources and references. Every article must have verifiable sources such as newspaper and magazine articles that talk about the character, or at the minimum, links to character biography pages on the official website for the series (per policy, fansites are usually considered unreliable). If a character is not notable enough to be mentioned in outside press, then they're not notable enough to have an article on Wikipedia!

And there's more. These guidelines were developed by soap opera fans on Wikipedia over a period of many years that also conform to general Wikipedia policies and guidelines for articles. I know there are a lot of other soap opera articles that violate these guidelines but that just means we have a lot of work to do to clean them all up. If you have any questions or comments you can reach me at my talk page. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 08:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello again, please engage in discussion about this article before adding this same material in again. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Brooke Logan again
Hello again, you're clearly intent on adding this information to the Brooke Logan article so I thought I'd try discussing it with you first. Wikipedia guidelines and the guidelines set up for soap opera articles require sources, a small section for plot, and something to indicate the importance of the character outside of the soap opera itself. So far you're not supplying any of that and are, basically, contradicting Wikipedia and the soap opera project's own guidelines. Please discuss your proposed changes here or on the Brooke Logan talk page before adding all this text again. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Request for participation
Hello, I've started up a discussion about the Brooke Logan article at the soap opera project talk page here. It would be really good if you would participate in that discussion so we can stop this edit war (which will only lead to us getting blocked). SQGibbon (talk) 23:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Brooke Logan. Users are expected to collaborate with others and avoid editing disruptively. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue to edit war, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. ''I've asked you multiple time to discuss your edits and have pointed out how they violate the policies and guidelines that Wikipedia follows and the soap opera project WP:SOAPS. Before this goes any further please discuss the edits you wish to make and start finding sources for them.'' SQGibbon (talk) 22:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

3RR Notice
Hello, I have reported this issue to the 3RR noticeboard. You can see and participate in the discussion by going here. SQGibbon (talk) 22:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents here regarding this issue. SQGibbon (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary&#32;for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

May 2011
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Brooke Logan, please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 23:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

June 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Brooke Logan. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. SQGibbon (talk) 19:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Brooke Logan with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Brooke Logan. That Ole' Cheesy Dude (Talk to the hand!) 19:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Response to your message
Hello, I think you left a message for me on my talk page but you weren't logged on to your account so I'm not positive. I left a long reply here. Please check it out. If you have any questions or comments about it please contact me on my talk page. Thanks. SQGibbon (talk) 03:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

February 2012
Your addition to Karen Spencer has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. From http://www.tvguide.com/News/Exclusive-Joanna-Johnson-1042837.aspx SQGibbon (talk) 02:28, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)